Ironic isn't it that the French ran roughshod over the Moroccans and took over their country without any remorse, yet now a Moroccan can't live in France. You would think it would only be fair.

Originally posted by imp87

The French did not say "we belong in France" when they killed a million Algerians.

I have personally never been guilty of rejecting anyone from obtaining citizenship, not have I ever occupied a foreign country or taken part in the mass slaughter of citizens of a foreign country.

Let me state it another way: apparently the French believe that Muslims in Muslim countries are fine under a brutal military occupation and can even be cohabitants of said occupied country, but the Muslim citizens of such countries are not fine as cohabitants in the French homeland.

“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt

"Having lived in a country filled with freedoms it is my gut reaction to think that a women covered in a black sheet on a bright sunny day is not free."

No, but anorexic half naked fake tanned bleached blondes are?

I suppose it is freedom to be so concerned with how people perceive you that you will undergo plastic surgery, change your eye color, starve or throw up after eating, expose most of your body for attention and risk skin cancer.

Here is a reality check on the freedom women enjoy in this country:

"Yearly, there are approximately 560,000 teenage girls in the USA who gets pregnant.

Of these, 95% are unintended leading to 1/3 ending in abortions and 1/3 in spontaneous miscarriage. The rest will continue the pregnancy term and keep the baby. More than half of these teens are younger than age 17 during their first pregnancy. Less than 25 percent of births to teens occur within wedlock." (Pregnancy Concerns Info)

In 2003, the median income of full-time, year round U.S. workers was $41,520 for men and $31,663 for women. Source: U.S. Census Bureau - Income in the United States: 2003 (www.census.gov )

Of the 15 million people age 15 or older who were full-time workers in 2001, 4.4% of women as compared with 2.8% of men reported earnings less than $10,000. At the opposite end of the economic spectrum, only 5.5% of women as compared with 15.8% of men reported earnings of $75,000 or more. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (www.census.gov )

If I remember correctly, I think you believe in not caring how other's percieve us, and sticking to 'who you really are' rather than conforming to other ppl's standards of what is 'cool' 'acceptable' or in this case what 'french' is.

At present, "who she really is" is Moroccan; and yes, perhaps she would be better off sticking with that. However, if she wants to be accepted as French, she will have to make some changes.

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Let me state it another way: apparently the French believe that Muslims in Muslim countries are fine under a brutal military occupation and can even be cohabitants of said occupied country, but the Muslim citizens of such countries are not fine as cohabitants in the French homeland.

What makes tu quoque a fallacy is that the premise (that the French thought it was okay to enter Morocco) is logically irrelevant to the conclusion (that we should think it is okay for the Moroccan woman to enter France). At best, you could only show that the French are hypocrites, but not that the woman has any right to enter France. At worst, if the analogy is valid then you have just proven that the Moroccan woman has no more business entering France than the French had in entering Morocco.

Add to that the fact that most of the French people who invaded Morocco are now long dead, and the premise becomes doubly irrelevant.

The French didn't "enter" Morocco, they invaded Morocco. This woman is clearly not invading, she is seeking permission from the French government to allow her to live with her French husband and three French children.

I did no more than point out the irony, "Ironic isn't it that the French ran roughshod over the Moroccans and took over their country without any remorse, yet now a Moroccan can't live in France. You would think it would only be fair." I see no fallacy in the ironic hypocrisy of the situation.

Morocco did not gain independence from France until 1956, and the French have still have influence, so it is quite possible that someone in the French government denying this woman's citizenship was indeed in occupation of Morocco.

Perhaps to you the situation is irrelevant. To the woman, her children, and husband I am sure it is quite relevant. I would even venture to say that to all of the Moroccans who were under French occupancy it is relevant.

How easy it is for those of us who have never suffered under a brutal military occupancy to dismiss the rights and grievances of those who have.

Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 18 July 2008 at 11:35am

“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt

Democracy and a Piece of Clothing

The Current Discussion: France has rejected a citizenship application from a burqa-wearing Moroccan woman on the grounds that she has "insufficiently assimilated" to French culture. Should cultural assimilation be a requirement for citizenship?

If France denied a Muslim immigrant from Morocco the French citizenship because she wears the burqa, then we are confronted with an outrage. France’s Conseil d’Etat, the highest Administrative Court to uphold the decision of the city government of Paris this week, would have violated the very Western values it intends to protect. But is that really what we're dealing with here? Not so fast – it's more complicated than that.

The modern Western nation-state is a community of political values. Citizenship is not based on cultural values, not on blood and not on ethnicity. Freedom and democracy and constitutionalism are at the core of this community. German philosopher Dolf Sternberger has coined the term “constitutional patriotism” for a citizen’s necessary identification with the basic political principles and procedures of the democratic state. According to Sternberger this identification does not necessarily have to be “affectionate.” It is part of the freedom of every citizen to abstain from exercising his or her political rights. Citizenship may be created by birth as well as free will. This type of republicanism includes the right to emigrate as well as to immigrate. The state may reject an immigrant’s petition to become a citizen if and when an applicant rejects the basic constitutional principles. Usually there are few cultural conditions to become a citizen, the proficiency in the local language being one of them.

Faiza M., the 32-year-old applicant who entered France eight years ago, has shown that she understands important democratic principles. She wants to become a citizen, which seems to indicate that she wishes to exercise her free will as a free citizen. She goes to court when the City of Paris rejects her. She takes the case to the highest court when the lower courts rule against her. She clearly knows how to exercise her political rights. She speaks excellent French. She is married to a French citizen. She has three French-born children, citizens all. Isn’t she destined to become a French citizen?

To base the rejection of citizenship on a piece of clothing is a doubtful proposition. To wear a cross, a kippa, a headscarf or even a burqa is the right of every citizen in a democratic society. It may be a political or a cultural or a religious symbol, and it may mean different things to different people. Given this kaleidoscope of possible meanings it is a stretch to assume that a religious accessory points to nothing else but an anti-democratic mindset. Faiza M. is certainly within her rights to contend that her clothing is part of her religious freedom. We may think that a burqa is a woman’s jail and a sign of her subjugation. But that is not the question before the court in cases of controversial immigrant petitions.

The French court has now ruled that the burqa signals a “lack of assimilation”. According to the judges, Faiza M. “exercises a version of religiosity” that is “incompatible” with French society and “especially the principle of the equality of sexes”. Let’s be honest: If gender equality was a criterion of civic inclusion, we might want to expatriate whole segments of the society of Bavaria or Utah or Normandie. As the French daily newspaper Liberation put it: “Why not denaturalize all French women who are being abused by their husbands?”

So, bottom line: an outrage?

Not quite so fast. As we learn more about Faiza M., the case becomes more complicated. Facts have a potential to confuse, especially those who yearn for clarity and moral righteousness.

Faiza M. was asked to present her immigrant petition to the administration of the city of Paris. The officials asked her to show her face so they could identify her. She told them that her religion did not allow her to do this. The officials offered to have a female officer check her passport and face and that all men would have to leave the room. Faiza M. declined again. The officials might have settled on fingerprints as a means of identification, but it is obvious that a state will need to identify a new citizen. How to issue a passport without a photograph of a face? Faiza M. declared that she was not interested in her political rights and that she would not want to vote. Clearly, it is the right of a citizen not to vote. But her reasoning raised eyebrows. She told the officials that only men should have the right to vote. The court, in the end, was not sure whether it was her own free will to sue the government – or her husband’s. On all occasions Faiza M. showed up with her husband. She declared that she had not been wearing the burqa in Morocco, but has been doing so at the suggestion of her French husband. She said she did not know what the words “laicism” and “democracy” meant. Faiza M. stated that she is a disciple of salafism, a Muslim version of religious originalism. French scholar Olivier Roy describes it as “neo-fundamentalism” consisting of two distinct schools: conservatism and jihadism. It may have been unclear to the court which school Faiza M. believed in.

While a piece of clothing is not sufficient evidence to base the rejection of an immigrant petition upon, it may well be part of the evidence. In Faiza M.’s case it merely compounds the evidence gathered by the questioning. While Faiza M. may accept some principles of the democratic state, she clearly rejects others. Unfortunately, the reasoning of the court (to the degree it has been reported) stresses the importance of the burqa as a visible sign of her lack of assimilation without focusing on the questioning. In fact, it is not troubling what is on her head, but inside of it. Had she worn a bikini (or nothing at all) the court would have been within its rights to reject her petition. It is not of importance – or at least not of primary importance – what she wears, but what she says.

The case highlights a dilemma all Western countries face when dealing with immigration. They would like to base decisions of naturalization on the political and constitutional concept of citizenship, but need some additional “cultural indicators” to find out.

This is a slippery slope. A strange alliance of traditionalists and secularists would like to expand the number of “cultural indicators”. In fact, some would even sign up for a cultural definition of assimilation. They would like an immigrant to subscribe to the host society’s “way of life” – which maybe anything from capitalist consumerism to feminism to Bratwurst and Sauerkraut. Bavarian officials, for example, have stated time and again that citizenship includes a set of local customs, values and mores that they expect the immigrant to adopt in order for him or her to become a valued citizen. The French court opinion will be a treasure trove for such culturalists. While the court may have had reason to reject Faiza M.’s citizenship petition, it has – maybe unwillingly - set a dangerous precedent. Some of the public reaction to the ruling is a case in point. Fadela Amara, an undersecretary in Nicolas Sarkozy’s government, called the court decision “excellent and legal”. She said it is “based on the values of our republic” and it will “strengthen the rights of women”. For Amara, a Muslim herself and descendent of Algerian Berber immigrants, a burqa is “a straitjacket for females” and a sign of a “totalitarian political project”. Amara argues that a burqa, a veil and a headscarf are pretty much the same thing. But are they really? And in all instances?

The case of Faiza M. will undoubtedly become a tool. Instead of focusing on the case of this individual and her convictions, the opinion will be remembered because of the symbolism of the burqa. Feminists will use the burqa case to make citizenship law an instrument of women’s liberation. Traditionalists will point to the case to declare cultural assimilation a precondition of citizenship. Faiza M., meanwhile, will remain the only non-national in her family. Ironically, the verdict will supply Faiza M.’s husband with another instrument of power. If she ever wanted to divorce him, she might have nowhere to go but to Morocco.

Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.

The French didn't "enter" Morocco, they invaded Morocco. This woman is clearly not invading, she is seeking permission from the French government to allow her to live with her French husband and three French children.

Exactly. So there's no basis for comparison at all, eh? Sorry I brought it up.

One thing I don't understand is why she would not let a female officer view her face if no males were present. That seems to be going too far and I could see where they would be upset about that. Surely she understands that they must be able to verify her identity. I think that is within reason. What will she do if she goes on Hajj to Mecca and has to remove it? There are certain times that I think it is necessary. Is there any belief that a woman must cover her face even in front of other women in Islam?

Anyway, that part wasn't where the court ruled against her on documents, but it does make me wonder.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.